Btw., I always wonder where all this "Elvis-should've-won-in-Lillehammer"-stuff comes from. This is just another legend! In fact it wasn't even close, only one judge gave a 1st place to Stojko, two went for Petrenko and six (including the CANADIAN! one!) for Urmanov.

Personally speaking, I don't think it was robbery. It was a close contest in my opinion. But, for me, I preferred Elvis in this particular case. Also, Petrenko only got one first place ordinal, Urmanov had six, Elvis one...and believe it or not, Candeloro had one from the Danish judge! Brokenankle posted a great link to an excellent site that lists the fulls results (marks, ordinals, etc.) for every Olympics (which is where I just found that!). I believe it is in the "Was it a split panel?" thread. Check it out....it is an awesome source!

1. Michelle Kwan & Sarah Hughes, 2002 GPF 2nd LP - I thought both Michelle and Sarah skated far better than Irina that night. I know Michelle had the fall, but Irina was sloppy and only landed four clean triple jumps. I was sort of shocked when her marks popped up....they were quite high for technical merit and not deservedly so, IMHO. But, I like Irina, so I wasn't extremely peeved!

4. Elvis Stojko, 1994 Olympics LP - There aren't too many that agree with me on this one. But, I always enjoyed that particular LP of Elvis's and felt, overall, he was the best. I've never been a big Urmanov fan, though. He had a nice quality on the ice, but I was always left feeling sort of cold after his performances.

7. Woetzl & Steuer, 1998 Olympics LP - Sorry, I am probably very alone on this one, but I thought they deserved the silver medal. B&S were sublime and wonderful, etc....but they made some big mistakes. W&S had small mistakes, but I felt overall they were slightly better...but that is just me of course!

8. Maria Butirskaya, 1998 Worlds LP - I thought Maria deserved the silver medal in Minneapolis. Irina was unpolished and extremely sloppy...and her much touted set of 3/3s weren't that clean or spectacular.

9. Ina & Zimmerman, 2002 Olympics LP - I would have had them at least in 4th over the uninspiring T&M.

I would agree with most of this:
1- Irina for some reason always seems to get held up at the GPF; she could go out to center ice and sit in a lawn chair for 4 1/2 minutes and still win the freeskate. She's won 3 of them, and IMO she only deserved 1 of them.

4 - This is one of those "style preference" situations; most North Americans find Stojko dynamic and Urmanov out-and-out boring; most Europeans may feel quite the oppisite. In this case, I too fall into the "North American" category, which, germanice, explains where this "Elvis should've won in Lillehammer" comes from. IMO, Urmanov was dull, ridicolously costumed, and why would you insert some sort of "weird wacky knees" sequence into what is supposed to be an "ultra-classical" program??

7- No, you're not alone. Jelena falls on Anton's head, they go down in a heap, and apparently this was considered to be QUITE artistic, based on the marks given, plus they made some other errors too. As far as I'm concerned, HUGE errors, especially those that should not be made once one gets out of the Junior level, deserve HUGE deductions, and from ANY PAIR NOT COACHED BY TAMARA MOSKVINA in that competition, IMO they would have been taken. I was so irritated by the marks this pulled in that I almost turned the TV off before the competition was over.

8- ITA, and I'd take it one step further. Butrskaja should have won not only the silver in 98, but the bronze in 96 and 97. Gusmeroli in 97 was merely "meh" and Slutskaya in her early days was mostly coasting by on pure personality, because there was really nothing about her skating that was all that spectacular.

9- I feel the same way. And once I found out that T/M ended up ahead of I/Z, I kind of had a feeling the way the rest of the competition was going to go. And turned out I was right. I considered this kind of a foreshadowing of the whole Sale/Pelletier-Bereznaja/Sikharulidze thing.

Some additional "we wuz robbed"s:

Blumberg & Seibert, Sarajevo, definitely. One judge takes it upon herself to decide which music has the proper tempo and which does not, which would have been one thing had she applied the same rules to Torvill & Dean. 20 years later and I still want to throw rotten vegetables at that woman.

Krylova & Ovsiannakov, 97 Worlds. "Masquerade Waltz" was one of the most brilliant free dances of the late 90s and should have pulled 6s. Gritshuk & Platov, for them, were quite good, too, but they made a couple of errors and should have been 2nd to K/O.

Anissina & Peizerat, 99 Worlds. However, I guess it all came out in the wash because 2 years later, Krylova & Ovsiannakov should have been 2nd to Anissina & Peizerat. Not only was K/O's free dance a really bad imitation of the Duchesnay's Jungle classic, it was also unbeleivably simple in composition and footwork and from a pure difficulty level it was not even top 10 stuff, tho they sold it well. A/P were much more difficult and interesting.

Michael Weiss, 98 Nationals. Weiss, back when he was still dyamic and interesting, loses out to Eldredge on one of his less enthralling nights because the US judges still operate under the impression that if we send someone to the Olympics without giving them a National title, the Olympic judges won't give them a gold medal. This despite the fact that Eldredge had already won his World title the year he lost the Nationals. If Weiss had won as he'd deserved to, Eldredge may have done better at Nagano because he always put on his best performances when he was PO'ed over previous results.

Brasseur & Eisler, Shishkova & Naumov, Eltsova & Bushkov, Meno & Sand, Kovarikova & Novotny, Rahkamo & Kokko, Lillehammer. Who CARES how many years (especially in the case of R/K) you've been putting the time in and working your way up to get your way into Olympic medal contention? Let's bring the pros back and place them ahead of you. You want an Olympic medal, surely you can wait around another 4 years..... :sheesh: :sheesh:

Drobiazko & Vanagas, 01 Worlds. The uproar in Vancouver was over Shae-Lynn and Vic not winning the bronze. IMO the couple that got truly ripped off was Drobiazko & Vanagas, who should have been on the podium over Lobacheva & Averbukh.

Punsalan & Swallow, 92 Nationals. I thought the unwritten rule was supposed to be, you send the best team possible to the Olympics, so therefore manipulating results at Olympic year Nationals is permissible to get the best team. So why didn't they hold up Punsalan & Swallow in 92? Defending National champs, an impressive 11th in their first Worlds, and yes they made a mistake in their free dance but SO WHAT? Mistakes have never been overlooked before? And they send Mayer & Breen instead?? What a waste of an Olympic berth. And to make things worse, this set a trend for leaving Punsalan & Swallow, arguably our best dance couple, at home for several seasons so once they finally got to go to Worlds again, they pretty much had to start moving through the ranks all over again. I've always felt that if they'd been sent to Albertville, their career would have turned out much differently.

7- No, you're not alone. Jelena falls on Anton's head, they go down in a heap, and apparently this was considered to be QUITE artistic, based on the marks given, plus they made some other errors too. As far as I'm concerned, HUGE errors, especially those that should not be made once one gets out of the Junior level, deserve HUGE deductions, and from ANY PAIR NOT COACHED BY TAMARA MOSKVINA in that competition, IMO they would have been taken. I was so irritated by the marks this pulled in that I almost turned the TV off before the competition was over.

So he tripped as they were coming out of the lift at the end, yes it was a mistake but it was just a fall - one that happens to every pairs skaters in the world probably far more often than they'd like. If you've ever watched an entire pairs competition (particularly Euroepans) - the first flight or two of skaters can be really nerve wrecking to watch for how unstabel they are. Either way i think B&S could have gone out and botched every element for the snooze fest that was Woetzel & Steuer.

And just pulling your leg but - if falling on an overhead lift is the type of mistake that shouldn't occur outside of juniors, then what kind of a mistake is falling on your closing pose?! :D

Personally speaking, I don't think it was robbery. It was a close contest in my opinion. But, for me, I preferred Elvis in this particular case. Also, Petrenko only got one first place ordinal, Urmanov had six, Elvis one...and believe it or not, Candeloro had one from the Danish judge! Brokenankle posted a great link to an excellent site that lists the fulls results (marks, ordinals, etc.) for every Olympics (which is where I just found that!). I believe it is in the "Was it a split panel?" thread. Check it out....it is an awesome source!

Well, I began to read the thread mentioned above, but being a "classical European" in sooo many ways (prefering Urmanov over Stojko anytime!) , I just stopped at a certain point and rolled my eyes, because to me it seemed to turn out into another "duuh-poor-Northamerican-skater-X-wuz-robbed-by-dull-Russian/Soviet-skater-Y-only-because-of-eville-eastern-bloc-judging!"-issue!

Sorry, but after reading fs message boards for so many years one sometimes gets the impression that almost only Northamericans (especially US-Americans!) do have the unique privilege of being robbed over and over again!

Michael Weiss, 98 Nationals. Weiss, back when he was still dyamic and interesting, loses out to Eldredge on one of his less enthralling nights because the US judges still operate under the impression that if we send someone to the Olympics without giving them a National title, the Olympic judges won't give them a gold medal. This despite the fact that Eldredge had already won his World title the year he lost the Nationals. If Weiss had won as he'd deserved to, Eldredge may have done better at Nagano because he always put on his best performances when he was PO'ed over previous results.

.

Totally agree with this 'wuzrobbed'.

Also:

Petrenko over Wylie in Albertville....
Yagudin over Abt at 2002 Euros.....

Brasseur & Eisler, Shishkova & Naumov, Eltsova & Bushkov, Meno & Sand, Kovarikova & Novotny, Rahkamo & Kokko, Lillehammer. Who CARES how many years (especially in the case of R/K) you've been putting the time in and working your way up to get your way into Olympic medal contention? Let's bring the pros back and place them ahead of you. You want an Olympic medal, surely you can wait around another 4 years..... :sheesh: :sheesh:

Rahkamo & Kokko didn't deserve an Olympic medal. Even though T&D came back and were placed ahead of them, R&K were actually a little lucky to stay ahead of Moniotte & Lavanchy, as they had a fall in their FD. (And I really like R&K, especially that La Strada free dance.) Yes, I know the situation might have been different (mindset etc) if T&D hadn't been there, but we'll never know that. You just make it sound like the pros came back and were just placed ahead without deserving to - which wasn't the case for any of the returning pros at all, IIRC. T&D were not held up - many thought they were held down. G&G and M&D were the two best pairs in the comp, and came top 2 deservedly. Kat Witt wasn't held up at all, and neither were the men who made mistakes in the short - and they weren't held up in the free either, although they all skated much better than they had done in the SP.

Punsalan & Swallow, 92 Nationals. I thought the unwritten rule was supposed to be, you send the best team possible to the Olympics, so therefore manipulating results at Olympic year Nationals is permissible to get the best team. So why didn't they hold up Punsalan & Swallow in 92? Defending National champs, an impressive 11th in their first Worlds, and yes they made a mistake in their free dance but SO WHAT? Mistakes have never been overlooked before? And they send Mayer & Breen instead?? What a waste of an Olympic berth. And to make things worse, this set a trend for leaving Punsalan & Swallow, arguably our best dance couple, at home for several seasons so once they finally got to go to Worlds again, they pretty much had to start moving through the ranks all over again. I've always felt that if they'd been sent to Albertville, their career would have turned out much differently.

So it's ok to hold up your favourite skaters if they make a mistake? The rules are that the best skater should win the national comp, and the national champion should go to the olympics, or whatever. Obviously it's very hard luck if someone loses their place because they amde mistakes at the crucial moment, but that's sport. While the country obviously wants the best team for the Olympics, if they make the rule that the national champion gets the place, then the national competition should be fair. If the skater/team perceived to be the best isn't the best on the night, then they shouldn't just be held up. It's unfair on everybody, and means the competition will be largely predetermined.

Rahkamo & Kokko didn't deserve an Olympic medal. Even though T&D came back and were placed ahead of them, R&K were actually a little lucky to stay ahead of Moniotte & Lavanchy, as they had a fall in their FD. (And I really like R&K, especially that La Strada free dance.) Yes, I know the situation might have been different (mindset etc) if T&D hadn't been there, but we'll never know that. You just make it sound like the pros came back and were just placed ahead without deserving to - which wasn't the case for any of the returning pros at all, IIRC. T&D were not held up - many thought they were held down. G&G and M&D were the two best pairs in the comp, and came top 2 deservedly. Kat Witt wasn't held up at all, and neither were the men who made mistakes in the short - and they weren't held up in the free either, although they all skated much better than they had done in the SP.

I agree that Moniotte & Lavanchy could have beaten Rahkamo/Kokko. However, the point I was trying to make is this: I did not feel that bringing the pros back into it was fair to the competitors who had been working their way through the ranks in the years since the pros went pro. Skating not being a sport wherein you win based on your time (as in track & field), but being a sport wherein OTHER PEOPLE DECIDE WHO FINISHES WHERE, it's a pretty dicey proposition to bring back skaters with stellar records and marvelous reputations because judging could WELL be based on reputation, and skating history has cases of this over and over again. In hindsight -- no, no-one was held up. But the fact of the matter is, they could have been. So therefore I always felt that bringing the pros back had the potential for trouble. Even beyond that, I have a problem with skaters who have already had their share of Olympic glory sitting out the eligible scene for 2-10 years and then coming back and at the very least reducing the chances of skaters who haven't had any yet.

So it's ok to hold up your favourite skaters if they make a mistake? The rules are that the best skater should win the national comp, and the national champion should go to the olympics, or whatever. Obviously it's very hard luck if someone loses their place because they amde mistakes at the crucial moment, but that's sport. While the country obviously wants the best team for the Olympics, if they make the rule that the national champion gets the place, then the national competition should be fair. If the skater/team perceived to be the best isn't the best on the night, then they shouldn't just be held up. It's unfair on everybody, and means the competition will be largely predetermined.

I agree that the best skaters should win the Nationals. In Britian, perhaps they always do. But the fact of the matter is, at least in the US, that the unwritten rule, as I mentioned in the original post, is that in an Olympic year, you send the best team possible. Now, if someone's doing a Zamboni impersonation and they get on the team, that's one thing. But one fall? (Look how many times Gritshuk & Platov fell and got held up). To put it another way -- at least there should be some consistency. Either hold people up in an Olympic year, or don't. But don't do it sometimes and other times not. (See Eldredge vs. Weiss in 98 Nationals entry) If there is a history of holding people up in Olympic years at US Nationals (and there IS), then why didn't Punsalan & Swallow get held up?? If no holding up ever took place, then I'd say fine, they didn't make the team. But since it does take place, then I'm saying they got ripped off because the "unwritten rule" was not applied consistently.

1. Kerrigan in Lillehammar
No way. Kerrigan skated with a stiff, almost arrogant demeanor, and she doubled her first planned triple jump. Her artistry was manufactured, and it did not come from her heart. I give Kerrigan all the credit in the world for overcoming the horrendous knee clubbing, and she skated two strong programs
at the Olympics, but she fairly and squarely won silver, not gold. Oksana Baiul skated her heart and soul out at Lillehammar, and that made the difference.

2. Fratianne in Lake Placid
Oh, boy, here we go again. Annet Poetszch won fairly and squarely, according to the rules of the day. School figures counted for 30 percent of the total score, with 20 percent to the short program and 50 percent to the long program. Annet was an outstanding school figures skater, and Fratianne always buried herself with her relatively weak school figures and had to play catch up. Annet's short and long programs at Lake Placid were uninspiring, but they did the job.
Had Fratianne skated with more fire in the long program, she might have won.
She also skated before Poetszch, so the judges had to hold back on the marks.
Still, I'm not about to second guess the judges on this competition.

3. Hoffman in Lake Placid
The judges properly placed Robin Cousins first and Hoffman second. Hoffman's artistry was, well, pretty non-existent. I remember reading an article on the men's Lake Placid competition that compared Hoffman as an "expertly rotating wooden tree". Yes, he was a strong jumper, and he had better school figures than Cousins, but Cousin's was a marvelously artistic skater and a strong jumper as well. Cousins won the gold fairly and squarely.

4. Torvil&Dean in Lillehammar
Sorry, folks. T&D rolled out a "retrospective long program" that was more or less their "greatest hits" from past programs. It was a program they had just rechoreographed and were trying to refine. It was a good, solid program, but it wasn't up the level of "Bolero", "Barnum", "Mack and Mabel", or any of their other previous championship programs. They deserved to be on the podium, but not in first place. Perhaps second, but not first.

5. Blumburg &Seibert in Sarajevo
Yes, they were robbed, bigtime!!! Blumberg & Siebert should have won the bronze medal. Some of the judges scored them low due to their choice of music - a piece of music was absolutely WAS suited to figure skating. This was an injustice, which, quite frankly, should have had the USFSA screaming at the top of their lungs.

6. Sumners in Sarajevo
No - Katarina Witt won fairly and squarely. Sumners won the school figures, then finished a dismal fifth in the short and second in the long. Witt was third in figures, and she won both short and long programs. Had Sumners skated ALL of her triples in her long program, she would have won a narrow victory over Witt. As it was, the margin was 5-4 for Witt. Sumners gave that title away.
She was not robbed.

Well, I began to read the thread mentioned above, but being a "classical European" in sooo many ways (prefering Urmanov over Stojko anytime!) , I just stopped at a certain point and rolled my eyes, because to me it seemed to turn out into another "duuh-poor-Northamerican-skater-X-wuz-robbed-by-dull-Russian/Soviet-skater-Y-only-because-of-eville-eastern-bloc-judging!"-issue!

Sorry, but after reading fs message boards for so many years one sometimes gets the impression that almost only Northamericans (especially US-Americans!) do have the unique privilege of being robbed over and over again!

Anke

Anke,

JMO but I think that North American audiences are more accepting of the classical European style than than European audience is of appreciating the North American style.

Piel, I think that's an interesting point. I seriously prefer the European style, with more drama and a bit softer. It's not in your face masculine. The North American men I like seem to follow the European style....Jeff B, Johnny W and Matt Savoie. While I appreciate Elvis' style, and even like several of his programs, I will never like them enough to think he should've beaten Urmanov. :D

But as to why European viewers don't necessarily like the North American way, I think it's just a very aggressive way of skating, and that's not what Europeans look for. But I'm tired and babbling, so disregard all this if you want.

Btw., I always wonder where all this "Elvis-should've-won-in-Lillehammer"-stuff comes from. This is just another legend! In fact it wasn't even close, only one judge gave a 1st place to Stojko, two went for Petrenko and six (including the CANADIAN! one!) for Urmanov.

Anke

Does it really matter whether or not it was close between the judges? Look at 1994 M/D vs. G/G debate. That is one of the most heated and debated decisions among skating fans, and it wasn't even close according to the judges...8 in favor of G/G and 1 in favor of M/D. That doesn't stop people from saying M/D was robbed, and it shouldn't if that's their opinion.

4. Torvil&Dean in Lillehammar
Sorry, folks. T&D rolled out a "retrospective long program" that was more or less their "greatest hits" from past programs. It was a program they had just rechoreographed and were trying to refine. It was a good, solid program, but it wasn't up the level of "Bolero", "Barnum", "Mack and Mabel", or any of their other previous championship programs. They deserved to be on the podium, but not in first place. Perhaps second, but not first.

When judging a competition, a skater or team is supposed to be compared to the performances of their rivals, not to their own performances in the past. If someone doesn't think Face The Music is as strong a programme as Mack & Mabel, Barnum or Bolero, that's fair enough. However, that should not be taken into account when deciding a placement in a particular competition. I believe T&D should have placed first in 1994 because I think their programme is better than either G&P's or U&Z's, that it's stronger and more difficult, and because they had the best performance on the night, among other reasons. Not because they won the Olympics with Bolero 10 years before, which should be irrelevant if you're judging a competition fairly. JMO.

It's similar to, say, Michelle Kwan in the 03 Worlds. IMO, Aranjuez isn't anywhere near as strong a programme as the likes of Salome, but when judging, that fact should be irrelevant, and Michelle won because she was better than Sokolova on the night.

When judging a competition, a skater or team is supposed to be compared to the performances of their rivals, not to their own performances in the past. If someone doesn't think Face The Music is as strong a programme as Mack & Mabel, Barnum or Bolero, that's fair enough. However, that should not be taken into account when deciding a placement in a particular competition. I believe T&D should have placed first in 1994 because I think their programme is better than either G&P's or U&Z's, that it's stronger and more difficult, and because they had the best performance on the night, among other reasons. Not because they won the Olympics with Bolero 10 years before, which should be irrelevant if you're judging a competition fairly. JMO.

Ah, but that does not erase the fact that Torvill and Dean's 1994 Olympic free skate was filled with moved from their past programs. As I said, it was a well skated retrospective of their past championship programs. They skated a similar "flashback" long program at Europeans and won, narrowly; however, they received a lot of criticism for the "staleness" of the program, and they went back to the drawing board and rechoregraphed the program six weeks before the Olympics. Talk about pressure. As I wrote, they certainly skated well, but they did not have the fire or the speed of the other top two teams. I know that a lot of their fans were outraged at the decision, but I stand my my opinion.

Ah, but that does not erase the fact that Torvill and Dean's 1994 Olympic free skate was filled with moved from their past programs. As I said, it was a well skated retrospective of their past championship programs.

Every time I read this argument I could cry. Come on - for every skater / pair / dance couple who repeats a certain move (do I have to mention a certain spiral by a certain female skater??) several people talk about "signature moves" and go WOW. If T&D choose to do it - it's a bad bad thing.

Originally Posted by SkateFan4Life

They skated a similar "flashback" long program at Europeans and won, narrowly; however, they received a lot of criticism for the "staleness" of the program, and they went back to the drawing board and rechoregraphed the program six weeks before the Olympics. Talk about pressure.

Pressure yes. Does pressure mean the judges have to mark them down? If at all this would be taken into account, common sense would say - such a performance under pressure might be appreciated by the audience. Concerning the judges I would say, this should have no influence at all to the marks.

Originally Posted by SkateFan4Life

As I wrote, they certainly skated well, but they did not have the fire or the speed of the other top two teams. I know that a lot of their fans were outraged at the decision, but I stand my my opinion.

So - this is the one point in your list which is completely subjective - for me (!) they had the fire. Much more than U&Z definitely. G&P were skating too frantically for me - as they did most of the time. As I said - subjective thing which would come into account in the second mark for a judge. And T&D lost on the TECH mark, not in the presentation iirc. Seems the judges hat not that much problem with T&D's enthusiasm or lack thereof.......